Page 1 of 1
| TC beyond a signal query 29/07/2021 at 21:29 #140835 | |
bugsy
1766 posts |
In the screenshot you can see 1A59, which is stationary at signal 138. Just beyond the next signal (136) there is a failed TC. In this situation I would tell 1A59 to pass signal 138 at danger and at the next signal (136) ask the driver to examine the line and pass signal at danger. I have done this before in the Doncaster South sims but is this course of action wrong?  Post has attachments. Log in to view them. Everything that you make will be useful - providing it's made of chocolate. Log in to reply |
| TC beyond a signal query 29/07/2021 at 21:44 #140837 | |
Hap
1039 posts |
PSAD first signal and examine the second section.
How to report an issue: www.SimSig.co.uk/Wiki/Show?page=usertrack:reportanissue Log in to reply |
| TC beyond a signal query 30/07/2021 at 09:04 #140839 | |
JamesN
1608 posts |
Nope, that’s absolutely correct Once the first train has examined on the affected line you can just talk past both signals Log in to reply |
| TC beyond a signal query 30/07/2021 at 09:46 #140840 | |
|
bugsy
1766 posts |
Thank you both. That's what I have been doing whenever a similar situation has arisen but I've always had a nagging doubt, so that's why I asked 
Everything that you make will be useful - providing it's made of chocolate. Log in to reply |
| TC beyond a signal query 31/07/2021 at 11:11 #140868 | |
|
bugsy
1766 posts |
This may seem obvious to some, but this is a similar query. The signal is situated just before the end of the TC which has failed. I am going to ask the driver to examine the line at the signal where the train is held and the following signal. Is this correct? .....  Post has attachments. Log in to view them. Everything that you make will be useful - providing it's made of chocolate. Log in to reply |
| TC beyond a signal query 31/07/2021 at 11:17 #140870 | |
9pN1SEAp
1180 posts |
Yes, just one signal block to examine, as the failure is beyond the overlap of the signal at which you stand. TD will need to be stepped up manually as the "false" occupation is immediately beyond the section of the signal. Thanks Jamie Jamie S (JAMS) Log in to reply The following user said thank you: bugsy |
| TC beyond a signal query 31/07/2021 at 17:56 #140879 | |
GeoffM
6376 posts 
|
If you know that only T2325 is showing occupied then examining up as far as D104 would be okay. But if you don't know if it's 2324 and/or 2325 then you would have to examine from (after) D104 as well.
SimSig Boss Log in to reply The following user said thank you: bugsy |
| TC beyond a signal query 01/08/2021 at 12:09 #140884 | |
KymriskaDraken
963 posts |
bugsy in post 140868 said:This may seem obvious to some, but this is a similar query.Before you tell the Driver anything you must ensure that the level crossing gates are closed, and the crossing is clear. Then tell the Driver: I am unable to clear the signal because of an equipment failure. I want you to pass signal XXX at Danger and examine the [up/down] line as far as [name of 2nd LC] then report back at signal YYY irrespective of aspect. I think it's less complicated to say to examine to the LC rather than 200m past the signal. Kev Log in to reply The following user said thank you: TUT |
| TC beyond a signal query 01/08/2021 at 12:45 #140885 | |
|
JamesN
1608 posts |
Yes signallers should where possible use landmarks to denote where signals are or when examining the line You wouldn’t be telling the driver you can’t clear the signal because of an equipment failure as you wouldn’t at this stage know it’s an equipment failure Log in to reply |
| TC beyond a signal query 01/08/2021 at 14:22 #140886 | |
|
KymriskaDraken
963 posts |
JamesN in post 140885 said:It's difficult to find appropriate words without being too verbose and confusing the Driver. I know it's not officially a failure yet, but does the Driver need to know that as well? They are simple folk after all. Kev Log in to reply |
| TC beyond a signal query 01/08/2021 at 14:57 #140887 | |
|
Ron_J
331 posts |
KymriskaDraken in post 140886 said:JamesN in post 140885 said:It's difficult to find appropriate words without being too verbose and confusing the Driver. I know it's not officially a failure yet, but does the Driver need to know that as well? They are simple folk after all. In this situation you’d just say I can’t clear the signal because of a track circuit showing occupied, so because of that I need you to etc.. etc… Log in to reply The following user said thank you: Hap |
| TC beyond a signal query 01/08/2021 at 14:57 #140888 | |
|
TUT
532 posts
|
We were trained to simply say that there is a track circuit showing occupied. You don't describe it as a track circuit (or any other kind of) failure yet as you don't know it's a failure until it's been examined and that's been confirmed. (Also don't describe it as SOWC yet of course).
Last edited: 01/08/2021 at 14:57 by TUT Reason: None given Log in to reply The following user said thank you: Hap |
| TC beyond a signal query 01/08/2021 at 15:01 #140889 | |
|
TUT
532 posts
|
Going back to the original uestion bugsy in post 140835 said: In the screenshot you can see 1A59, which is stationary at signal 138. Just beyond the next signal (136) there is a failed TC.Interestingly, after it has been examined, this would potentially be an occasion where you could use the new passing two main aspect stop signals at danger procedure in real life (not simulated in SimSig). The second signal would have to be not fitted with TPWS and the third signal would have to be off before you authorised the driver to pass the two signals at danger, but you could now do it in the same authority. Log in to reply The following users said thank you: JamesN, Hap |
| TC beyond a signal query 01/08/2021 at 15:18 #140890 | |
|
Stephen Fulcher
2078 posts |
How does that work when the third signal is an auto on a panel where the aspect may not be displayed? Is it enough to assume it is off on the basis that the tracks are all clear between it and the next or would you need something more positive? Log in to reply |
| TC beyond a signal query 01/08/2021 at 16:09 #140894 | |
|
KymriskaDraken
963 posts |
Stephen Fulcher in post 140890 said:How does that work when the third signal is an auto on a panel where the aspect may not be displayed?I think you could safely assume that signal #3 is off if the track circuits are clear between it and the overlap of the next signal. If the signal is at Danger the Driver will contact the Signalman again. Kev Log in to reply |
| TC beyond a signal query 01/08/2021 at 16:41 #140899 | |
|
Hap
1039 posts |
KymriskaDraken in post 140894 said:Stephen Fulcher in post 140890 said:Number 1 rule in the railway. NEVER assume.How does that work when the third signal is an auto on a panel where the aspect may not be displayed?I think you could safely assume that signal #3 is off if the track circuits are clear between it and the overlap of the next signal. If the signal is at Danger the Driver will contact the Signalman again. What if a train has dropped a load off and it's not occupying the circuits because of a TCA fault? 4 car 156 and the front 2 has a track circuit actuator fault (Not operating track circuits) but then rear 2 is working fine and then it splits. Then you've got a train in section not operating TC's and one occupying a TC in rear. You'd be wanting to contact the last train that's traversed over that section to check it was complete (If there was one in close proximity when it started showing occupied). IF the railway is based on assumptions, I'll just throw my rule book in the bin then. How to report an issue: www.SimSig.co.uk/Wiki/Show?page=usertrack:reportanissue Log in to reply |
| TC beyond a signal query 01/08/2021 at 16:58 #140900 | |
|
KymriskaDraken
963 posts |
Hap in post 140899 said:KymriskaDraken in post 140894 said:The problem with that is that your scenario could apply to any track circuit on the railway! You might as well go back to Absolute Block.Stephen Fulcher in post 140890 said:Number 1 rule in the railway. NEVER assume.How does that work when the third signal is an auto on a panel where the aspect may not be displayed?I think you could safely assume that signal #3 is off if the track circuits are clear between it and the overlap of the next signal. If the signal is at Danger the Driver will contact the Signalman again. On a Track Circuit Block line I suggest that the Signalman could be satisfied that the section is clear if the track circuits are showing clear, and there is no reason to suspect that the line is obstructed in any way. He shouldn't have to think about possible obstructions on the bits of the railway where the system is working. I'm not sure what the Regs say now about TCFs, but in my day the Reg said that before authorising train #2 to PSAD he must see the previous train occupy and clear a track circuit in advance of the affected portion of line. Provided that the other conditions for PSAD are met, train #2 can be sent forward. Kev Log in to reply |
| TC beyond a signal query 16/08/2021 at 21:40 #141176 | |
Mikehax
32 posts |
Prior to implementing the Passing two signals under the same authority, the line MUST be examined in the old way passing each signal under a separate authority so there is no requirement to assume anything as the line has been proved clear. Incidentally, in addition to the requirement for the second signal to not be fitted with TPWS and the third signal showing a proceed aspect, it must be the same fault that is causing the first and second signals to be held held at danger / black. Log in to reply |