Page 1 of 1
| Westbury Derailment report 14/11/2009 at 13:02 #235 | |
Simdmuk
155 posts |
May be of interest to some.as this was a signalling related derailment .... http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/091110_R282009_East%20Somerset%20Junction.pdf Log in to reply |
| Westbury Derailment report 14/11/2009 at 13:02 #4075 | |
|
Simdmuk
155 posts |
May be of interest to some.as this was a signalling related derailment .... http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/091110_R282009_East%20Somerset%20Junction.pdf Log in to reply |
| Westbury Derailment report 14/11/2009 at 13:39 #4077 | |
AnyFile
101 posts |
I had read this report two or three days ago, and a question rise to me. What would have been the correct way to work? Should have been the point (943) set to reverse when the train was authorize to move on the single line (and in this way forbidding any movement on the Up Westbury)? Or would have been possible to require the driver to sop at signal 275? My question is about if there is a requirement that, under pilotman working on a single line, that the line need to be set and clear in full, before the train is allowed to enter this line. Log in to reply |
| Westbury Derailment report 14/11/2009 at 15:50 #4082 | |
|
kbarber
1764 posts |
The train should have stopped at 275, which was either black or red (incapable of being cleared because the points ahead of it were affected by the failure). Specific authority should then be given to pass 275 when the points ahead of it have been properly set. (This is standard working. Authorising the driver to pass a series of signals at danger on the single line was entirely appropriate, as there was no other train on the line and those signals either had no points in their routes or the points were already set by the MOM, also they did not affect passage of trains on the main line.)
Log in to reply |