Page 2 of 4
| Unsafe reversing 13/04/2013 at 10:46 #43410 | |
Ron_J
331 posts |
Yep, a few mechanical boxes in my neck of the woods are already fitted with event recorders, which include the block bells as one of the channels. All boxes on the Route are to get them in due course.
Log in to reply |
| Unsafe reversing 13/04/2013 at 11:00 #43411 | |
Steamer
3984 posts |
" said:As for recording block bells - is it done anywhere?Most boxes made do with a little book... :whistle: :whistle: "Don't stress/ relax/ let life roll off your backs./ Except for death and paying taxes/ everything in life.../ is only for now." (Avenue Q) Last edited: 13/04/2013 at 11:00 by Steamer Log in to reply |
| Unsafe reversing 13/04/2013 at 11:07 #43412 | |
|
Late Turn
699 posts |
What's entered in the TRB didn't necessarily reflect exactly the bell signals that were actually exchanged (or otherwise) though! " said: Yep, a few mechanical boxes in my neck of the woods are already fitted with event recorders, which include the block bells as one of the channels. All boxes on the Route are to get them in due course. Cheers, I thought they were around somewhere. No doubt something to look forward to here! Last edited: 13/04/2013 at 11:08 by Late Turn Log in to reply |
| Unsafe reversing 13/04/2013 at 12:49 #43415 | |
|
Firefly
521 posts |
Quote:I think I'd be equally puzzled if someone tried to block back on a TCB line Indeed, although I guess what he was getting at was that his overlap was going to be obstructed which would cause a change of aspect on the previous box's signal. A phone would have been a better way to of done things, particularly as this was prior to voice recorders. Quote: Yep, a few mechanical boxes in my neck of the woods are already fitted with event recorders, which include the block bells as one of the channels. All boxes on the Route are to get them in due course.OMG, I was joking. The railway just gets worse and worse. It's hard to imagine what the cost/benefit case would be for doing that. I don't think the railway event recorders have gone as far as aviation ones yet. In our aircraft we have Quick Access Recorders which up load thousands of parameters as soon as you get on stand. A computer then reviews the data and flags anything non standard. Amber flags are unlikely to result in a phone call unless there's lots of them, red flags will result in a phone call and a call into the office to explain yourself (Tea and Biscuits are not likely to be provided). So watch out because there's bound to be someone on the railway looking to waste some money on something similar. FF Log in to reply |
| Unsafe reversing 13/04/2013 at 14:28 #43417 | |
|
Ron_J
331 posts |
Management can already dial into the voice recorders live. With the RCM (Remote Condition Monitoring) system, Operations Control and S&T can watch events such as track circuit occupation live as they happen and alarms are raised to Operations Control when, for example, a point end takes over a predefined time to move across or a track circuit is slow to clear. This isn't generally fitted to mechanical boxes yet but is just about everywhere else. It is not unusual to receive a phone call from the Controller asking about a set of points which you haven't even noticed were slow to go normal or whatever.
Log in to reply The following user said thank you: Firefly |
| Unsafe reversing 13/04/2013 at 14:29 #43418 | |
|
Ron_J
331 posts |
Just to add, the event recorders which I mentioned are being installed in mechanical boxes up here are quite separate from the RCM system.
Log in to reply |
| Unsafe reversing 14/04/2013 at 09:12 #43432 | |
|
Firefly
521 posts |
I think I've seen RCM on the Heathrow Express line but that's the only place I've come across it and even then I had no idea of what it did. Do clamp lock pump units have additional terminals for RCM or am I just making that up? FF Log in to reply |
| Unsafe reversing 14/04/2013 at 20:15 #43467 | |
|
Danny252
1461 posts |
" said:OMG, I was joking. The railway just gets worse and worse. It's hard to imagine what the cost/benefit case would be for doing that.Well, seeing as the worst accident in British railway history resulted from incorrect booking (and several more have had protracted/inconclusive investigations due to "fudged" booking after the accident), I'd say it's not a terribly bad idea to be able to know what bell signals were sent. Log in to reply The following users said thank you: Signalhunter, postal |
| Unsafe reversing 14/04/2013 at 22:33 #43474 | |
|
Colourlight
117 posts |
AWS and TPWS would not specifically stop a train proceeding in the wrong direction without authority. They apply to a specific signal. TPWS is also used to stop a train that is exceeding the speed limit at certain locations. And AWS Magnets are also used for Temporary and Emergency speed restrictions. The only thing that would alert a signaller to a train reversing, whether authorised or unauthorised would be the occupation and clearance of track circuits.
Log in to reply The following user said thank you: sorabain |
| Unsafe reversing 15/04/2013 at 10:19 #43485 | |
|
Firefly
521 posts |
Quote:Well, seeing as the worst accident in British railway history resulted from incorrect booking (and several more have had protracted/inconclusive investigations due to "fudged" booking after the accident), I'd say it's not a terribly bad idea to be able to know what bell signals were sent.A fair point, however it all comes down to how NR use the information. If they use it as a means of disciplining and hanging the the signallers then I believe they'd be using it for the wrong reasons. Log in to reply |
| Unsafe reversing 15/04/2013 at 12:05 #43488 | |
|
clive
2789 posts |
" said:" said:Doesn't matter. It will pass over the two magnets in the AWS ramp in the wrong order, so you'll get a "sunflower" and warning horn irrespective of the aspect.I'm not sure AWS would cause a train to stop in the wrong direction in an auto section. If we assume 200yd overlaps and 200yds from the AWS ramp to the signal, a train would have to be over 400yds long otherwise the auto signal would change to a proceed aspect once the train cleared the track beyond the signal. (This is why bidirectional line AWS units either have suppressed permanent magnets, or have one permanent and two electromagnets, depending on signal positions.) Log in to reply |
| Unsafe reversing 15/04/2013 at 12:09 #43489 | |
|
clive
2789 posts |
" said:If you think about how bidirectional lines will be handled, this makes sense. The system needs to have direction built in to it, with loops for the opposite direction being ignored. Otherwise you'd need to disable the loops when you thought there was a train coming the other way, which is going to be a recipe for chaos when a train reverses. By the way, IIRC the speed traps and train stops have different signals in the arming loops (but the same trigger loop), so that the train knows whether to time the gap between loops or not. Log in to reply |
| Unsafe reversing 15/04/2013 at 13:49 #43492 | |
moonraker
370 posts |
When I was still an Oxford driver and went to Stratford on Avon (Now Chiltern) we had a shunt to make with most services after arrival from platform 1 to either plat 2 or 3. To help the signaller at Bearley Junction we would reverse the turbo out to the shunt signal on the up line (done with the Senior Conductor in the back cab) then driving normally into either plat 2 or 3. 9 times out of 10 there would be a Centro terminator right behind us waiting to get in. Our Driver Managers got windy about it in the end and we were forbidden to do this move, instead having to drive from the London end cab and changing ends once behind the GPL to drive normally in. I think the layout has changed a bit since then though
Log in to reply |
| Unsafe reversing 15/04/2013 at 15:39 #43497 | |
|
Late Turn
699 posts |
" said:
Thanks Clive - I was thinking about Geoff's suggestion that the signal might clear, and completely overlooked the obvious! Tom Log in to reply |
| Unsafe reversing 18/04/2013 at 03:07 #43633 | |
|
Stephen Fulcher
2078 posts |
Kev, I think generally RCM is done by current detection. You can certainly get a current trace from a set of points to see when they have failed. Recording the block bells would of course only be effective if the block bells worked reliably - any missed bells would show up as a "Signallers Error" when in reality it could be down to any number of things. A lot of the time what bell is being received can be down to how well the Signaller knows his colleague at the next box as much as what is actually heard. Some of the bells are shocking even though the Signallers will have pressed the tapper the right number of times. I would not be surprised if some Managers were to do things like monitoring block bells to cut out slack working just to be awkward. Fortunately, there are generally far more important circuits to monitor. Stratford-upon-Avon now has a facing crossover to allow access to all platforms from the Bearley end to avoid shunting. Log in to reply |
| Unsafe reversing 18/04/2013 at 09:12 #43639 | |
|
moonraker
370 posts |
Yes I think we were told that was the plan before the work went to Chiltern. Never got to see it after it was done. Don't think we even got to see the new signalling North of Banbury either
Log in to reply |
| Unsafe reversing 18/04/2013 at 09:26 #43640 | |
|
kbarber
1742 posts |
" said:
I'd love to know what they'd have made of some of the ringing at the south end of the Midland. Those old MR bells could take very fast ringing (unlike the GW ones, where a ringing relay forced a more stately rhythm). To the uninitiated, it was sometimes hard even to count how many beats had rung. Eventually one's ear sharpened and 10 beats could reliably be distinguished. Eventually I acquired the same ability the signalmen had to distinguish 2-2-1-5, 2-3-5 and 3-2-5, though in reality there were no audible pauses whatsoever. All on top of regulating 40 trains in an hour over a flat junction, with a 600yard (or so) section and 5 boxes in 3.5 miles on the approach from the north (the up direction was a lot easier with a section just over a mile long). Never a dull moment! Log in to reply |
| Unsafe reversing 18/04/2013 at 09:57 #43642 | |
|
Firefly
521 posts |
Cheers Steve Surprised I haven't come across any of it, although to be honest when I do my little jolly's on the railway I tend to try and make sure it's in a signal box and not lineside (you know, slippers rather head to toe in orange) :-) K Log in to reply |
| Unsafe reversing 18/04/2013 at 10:19 #43644 | |
|
Stephen Fulcher
2078 posts |
" said:Yes I think we were told that was the plan before the work went to Chiltern. Never got to see it after it was done. Don't think we even got to see the new signalling North of Banbury eitherFenny Compton box closed May 2004 and Chiltern started going to Stratford in December of that year. With them now having the Bicester Town Branch as well, I'm surprised they haven't taken over the Banbury to Oxford shuttle as well. Log in to reply |
| Unsafe reversing 18/04/2013 at 14:58 #43654 | |
|
moonraker
370 posts |
Wouldn't be at all surprised if that were the case eventually. If/When ? the Bletchley - Oxford line re-opens I would bet Chiltern want a piece of the action as well
Log in to reply |
| Unsafe reversing 18/04/2013 at 22:27 #43688 | |
|
clive
2789 posts |
" said:You'd log the tapper to see what was sent, and the current to the bell to see what was received. Then if investigating a problem you could judge who's fault it was. Log in to reply |
| Unsafe reversing 19/04/2013 at 00:46 #43693 | |
|
UKTrainMan
1803 posts |
In terms of protection, I'm a little surprised no-one has mentioned about either trap points or catch points. Both links lead to the same Wikipedia.org page Any views and / or opinions expressed by myself are from me personally and do not represent those of any company I either work for or am a consultant for. Log in to reply |
| Unsafe reversing 19/04/2013 at 06:01 #43695 | |
|
Stephen Fulcher
2078 posts |
Hopefully they will not try that Clive as the number of times that would generate a fault that was a mere technicality would be frustrating to those of us with the misfortune of having to investigate them.
Log in to reply |
| Unsafe reversing 19/04/2013 at 11:58 #43699 | |
|
Ron_J
331 posts |
As I said in an earlier post, the data loggers fitted in mechanical and panel boxes in Scotland are not used for RCM but for investigation and unobtrusive monitoring. So a hastily rung block bell isn't going to alarm in Control as a fault.
Log in to reply |
| Unsafe reversing 19/04/2013 at 22:14 #43720 | |
|
Stephen Fulcher
2078 posts |
Such systems are common and have been for a long time - level crossings are a typical example where the data logger can be pulled after an allegation against the crossing, or a fault. SSI records just about everything as well, and has been around since 1985. Log in to reply |