Page 1 of 1
| Signal failure detected in the Newbury area... 19/11/2014 at 19:34 #65666 | |
Steamer
3984 posts |
 Photo Source T2865 (formerly known as R824) quite literally fell over yesterday, fouling the Down Westbury. 1A83 passed shortly after on the Up Westbury, taking out the 3-position junction indicator on the top of the signal. "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: 20/11/2014 at 08:48 by Steamer Log in to reply |
| Signal failure detected in the Newbury area... 20/11/2014 at 05:33 #65668 | |
Backup
89 posts |
Well, on the plus side, having fallen across the rails like that; it might activate the track circuit and replace the signal to danger. Oh, wait... :silly: Alt. caption: Newbury's new ground position lights turned out to have major design flaws. Log in to reply |
| Signal failure detected in the Newbury area... 20/11/2014 at 06:23 #65669 | |
|
Hawk777
386 posts |
At least the signal suffered a right-side failure (as opposed to a left-side failure).
Log in to reply |
| Signal failure detected in the Newbury area... 20/11/2014 at 06:31 #65670 | |
|
AndyG
1842 posts |
Well, a horizontal signal indicates danger.....
I can only help one person a day. Today's not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look too good either. Log in to reply |
| Signal failure detected in the Newbury area... 20/11/2014 at 12:26 #65677 | |
|
Muzer
718 posts |
I also love the cancellation message in the system: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C40109/2014/11/17/advanced While technically true, I think the fact that the signal apparently caused an air leak might have something to do with it... I suppose since signals aren't supposed to cause air leaks, that does constitute a signal failure 
Last edited: 20/11/2014 at 12:27 by Muzer Log in to reply |
| Signal failure detected in the Newbury area... 20/11/2014 at 14:19 #65678 | |
|
delticfan
476 posts |
Brings a whole new aspect to signal failure (sorry)
Log in to reply |
| Signal failure detected in the Newbury area... 20/11/2014 at 19:20 #65680 | |
|
Lardybiker
771 posts |
" said:Well, on the plus side, having fallen across the rails like that; it might activate the track circuit and replace the signal to danger.Interestingly, the signal falling over would potentially put the previous signal to danger regardless by several methods. If there is not a TC break at the signal then the entire TC could be activated putting the previous signal to danger. If there is a TC break at the signal, it would activate either the block the signal sits in or the fallen signal's overlap either of which would put the previous signal to danger. The key is to both of these though whether it's lying on both rails and if it is, is it acting as a short. Any paint or lacquer on the mast may act as an insulator which may mean the TC won't activate..... There is also the case if any of the bulbs or wiring were broken as a result of the fall. If they were, an aspect being out would be flagged by signalling system too warning the signaler of a problem and also putting the previous signal to red. This is of course depending on which aspect was affected as not all have "lamp out" detection. Log in to reply |
| Signal failure detected in the Newbury area... 20/11/2014 at 19:28 #65681 | |
|
Steamer
3984 posts |
" said:" said:All irrelevant, I'm afraid- the area uses axle counters. According to WNXX (the forum where I heard about this), the signal falling over did sufficient damage to replace the previous signal to danger, but apparently it was still capable of displaying a red aspect. I don't know how accurate that report is, however.Well, on the plus side, having fallen across the rails like that; it might activate the track circuit and replace the signal to danger.Interestingly, the signal falling over would potentially put the previous signal to danger regardless by several methods. If there is not a TC break at the signal then the entire TC could be activated putting the previous signal to danger. If there is a TC break at the signal, it would activate either the block the signal sits in or the fallen signal's overlap either of which would put the previous signal to danger. The key is to both of these though whether it's lying on both rails and if it is, is it acting as a short. Any paint or lacquer on the mast may act as an insulator which may mean the TC won't activate..... "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) Log in to reply |
| Signal failure detected in the Newbury area... 20/11/2014 at 19:59 #65682 | |
GeoffM
6376 posts |
" said:If there is not a TC break at the signal then the entire TC could be activated putting the previous signal to danger. If there is a TC break at the signal, it would activate either the block the signal sits in or the fallen signal's overlap either of which would put the previous signal to danger. The key is to both of these though whether it's lying on both rails and if it is, is it acting as a short. Any paint or lacquer on the mast may act as an insulator which may mean the TC won't activate.....Usually a few feet beyond the post so a straight falling over like that, perpendicular to the rails, would occupy the berth track rather than the overlap. Back in the day the block joint would apparently be nearly a coach length so a steam engine could sit at the signal while its nose was past the signal, without occupying the next track. " said: All irrelevant, I'm afraid- the area uses axle counters. According to WNXX (the forum where I heard about this), the signal falling over did sufficient damage to replace the previous signal to danger, but apparently it was still capable of displaying a red aspect. I don't know how accurate that report is, however.Thought it was still TCs there - it was a recontrol, not a resignalling. Though that does indeed come soon (if not already, in which case you would, of course, be correct). If a signal has power but no comms then it can display a red; might depend on the design though. SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
| Signal failure detected in the Newbury area... 20/11/2014 at 20:58 #65685 | |
|
Steamer
3984 posts |
" said:" said:According to another member of WNXX (a driver for FGW who signs Newbury), train detection is now via axle counters from Southcote to Hampstead LC.All irrelevant, I'm afraid- the area uses axle counters. According to WNXX (the forum where I heard about this), the signal falling over did sufficient damage to replace the previous signal to danger, but apparently it was still capable of displaying a red aspect. I don't know how accurate that report is, however.Thought it was still TCs there - it was a recontrol, not a resignalling. Though that does indeed come soon (if not already, in which case you would, of course, be correct). If a signal has power but no comms then it can display a red; might depend on the design though. "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) Log in to reply |
| Signal failure detected in the Newbury area... 20/11/2014 at 21:33 #65687 | |
|
GeoffM
6376 posts |
" said:" said:Fair enough. I guess it's something they can do literally a track at a time over a period of time, unlike a resignalling/recontrol." said:According to another member of WNXX (a driver for FGW who signs Newbury), train detection is now via axle counters from Southcote to Hampstead LC.All irrelevant, I'm afraid- the area uses axle counters. According to WNXX (the forum where I heard about this), the signal falling over did sufficient damage to replace the previous signal to danger, but apparently it was still capable of displaying a red aspect. I don't know how accurate that report is, however.Thought it was still TCs there - it was a recontrol, not a resignalling. Though that does indeed come soon (if not already, in which case you would, of course, be correct). If a signal has power but no comms then it can display a red; might depend on the design though. SimSig Boss Log in to reply |
| Signal failure detected in the Newbury area... 11/01/2015 at 23:04 #67740 | |
|
Steamer
3984 posts |
Bump! Just seen a photo of the repaired signal, rather unusual (unique?) location for the feathers: Photo "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) Log in to reply |
| Signal failure detected in the Newbury area... 12/01/2015 at 01:56 #67745 | |
BarryM
2158 posts |
I don't think that one will fall over. If it does, pity help the contractors. Barry Barry, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Log in to reply |
| Signal failure detected in the Newbury area... 12/01/2015 at 08:43 #67746 | |
|
Stephen Fulcher
2078 posts |
It may be a temporary structure just to get the trains running pending a full replacement. I've seen a picture on Facebook with a 20MPH speed right by the signal too but that's not in this picture. "Feathers" do not have to be on top of a signal, I've seen them alongside the main head in quite a few cases to aid sighting, although not sure I've ever seen them underneath it. In Any case as it is different to the original signal, where they were on top, the signal will have been subject to a sighting committee. The new post also looks shorter than the original. Log in to reply |
| Signal failure detected in the Newbury area... 12/01/2015 at 09:21 #67749 | |
|
kbarber
1742 posts |
Some of the very earliest 5-light feathers were below the signal head. Not sure exactly which signals were involved but I think they were installed at Northallerton in 1939; certainly they were somewhere along that stretch of the ECML north of York.
Log in to reply |
| Signal failure detected in the Newbury area... 12/01/2015 at 23:42 #67768 | |
|
clive
2789 posts |
" said:rather unusual (unique?) location for the feathers:Indeed. Railway Group Standards say that the feathers must be above or to one side of the signal. (And if they're to the side, they have to be on the correct side for the direction they indicate.) Log in to reply |
| Signal failure detected in the Newbury area... 13/01/2015 at 05:05 #67770 | |
lazzer
634 posts |
" said:" said:Before they started any work on Reading station, the signal at the up end of the old platform 5 had its feather to the right of the signal, and that was for a route to the left onto the Up Relief. A NR signal inspector once told me why - they put it on the wrong side by mistake and left it there. So much for "standards" ...rather unusual (unique?) location for the feathers:Indeed. Railway Group Standards say that the feathers must be above or to one side of the signal. (And if they're to the side, they have to be on the correct side for the direction they indicate.) Log in to reply |
| Signal failure detected in the Newbury area... 13/01/2015 at 16:56 #67777 | |
|
clive
2789 posts |
" said:" said:Tut-tut-tut. A number 1 feather on the right looks awfully like a number 6. Does anyone have a photo of this?[quote="Steamer" post=67740]rather unusual (unique?) location for the feathers: Log in to reply |
| Signal failure detected in the Newbury area... 13/01/2015 at 18:16 #67781 | |
|
Stephen Fulcher
2078 posts |
And 1 and 6, or 3 and 4 could easily be confused. I am sure there would have been a better reason than that quoted, if it were a mistake then it would have been corrected before the signal would be allowed to be commissioned.
Log in to reply |
| Signal failure detected in the Newbury area... 13/01/2015 at 18:27 #67782 | |
|
JamesN
1607 posts |
R53 had a position 4 feather mounted to the right of the signal, not position 1. JI was Illuminated when route was set to the UM (R57), with either 'M' Theatre indication of using the first crossover (point numbers desert me) or 'R1' if using the non-preferred route via the Down Relief. Route to the Up Relief was just indicated with the Theatre.
Log in to reply |
| Signal failure detected in the Newbury area... 13/01/2015 at 18:41 #67783 | |
|
Stephen Fulcher
2078 posts |
Side mounting will only really become an issue if there are diverging routes on both sides of the signal.
Log in to reply |
| Signal failure detected in the Newbury area... 13/01/2015 at 18:43 #67784 | |
|
Ron_J
331 posts |
" said:Bump!I am VERY surprised the RAM and the Route Signal Sighting Engineer allowed that monstorsity to be commissioned. Unbelievable. Log in to reply |
| Signal failure detected in the Newbury area... 13/01/2015 at 19:12 #67785 | |
|
Stephen Fulcher
2078 posts |
It looks temporary to me - almost like when they plant road traffic lights in concrete filled drums during roadworks.
Log in to reply |
| Signal failure detected in the Newbury area... 13/01/2015 at 19:52 #67786 | |
|
Ron_J
331 posts |
Temporary or not, it should still have been assessed by a signal sighting committee and the SSF must have been signed off by the RAM. I wonder if it has a derogation against the requirements of GK/RT0045? I'd be very interested to see the SSF purely out of professional curiosity. This arrangement sets a precedent...
Log in to reply |
| Signal failure detected in the Newbury area... 14/01/2015 at 06:43 #67798 | |
|
clive
2789 posts |
" said:R53 had a position 4 feather mounted to the right of the signal, not position 1. JI was Illuminated when route was set to the UM (R57), with either 'M' Theatre indication of using the first crossover (point numbers desert me) or 'R1' if using the non-preferred route via the Down Relief. Route to the Up Relief was just indicated with the Theatre.Thanks - that's a lot more plausible. Log in to reply |
