Page 1 of 1
| Lamp failure of an auto circumventing lamp proving 31/08/2016 at 22:16 #84442 | |
TUT
532 posts 
|
While playing Huddersfield, I got a signal lamp failure on automatic signal HU646. The signal in rear of it is automatic signal HU648. HU646 failed such that it could not show a proceed aspect, neither clear, nor caution, nor preliminary caution could be shown. However, the red, danger aspect was fine. Neither signal has emergency replacement controls. This means that HU646 would show danger when passed by a train and HU648 in rear of it would step up to caution. When the train then passed HU644 and exited the block protected by HU646, HU646 would attempt to step up to caution, would fail, and HU648 would return to danger due to lamp proving. Due to the delays caused by this, I ended up with two trains following closely. I authorised train 1P61 past the unlit HU646. At this point, 2W54 was already standing at HU648. 1P61 duly passed HU646, exiting the block protected by HU648, which stepped up to caution. 2W54 immediately proceeded towards Deighton station, where it was booked to stop.  1P61 then proceeded past HU644 and exited the block protected by HU646, causing it to attempt to step up to caution and to fail. At this point, 2W54 was already beyond HU648, approaching Deighton station. It would therefore have no warning that it was approaching HU646 while it is unlit.  Given that I, the signaller, knew that this would happen, I am wondering if any action would be required to be taken in real life to contact 2W54 and let the driver know about the situation. HU648 is at a boundary, it is the first of Huddersfield's signals, with the signal in rear being controlled by Healey Mills. Would I, in real life, be required to contact the signaller at Healey Mills so that they could bring the train to a stand at a controlled signal (not possible for me to do this even in theory) and inform the driver over the telephone? Obviously the radio systems now on the railways change things (although I'd still be interested to know what the procedure would be today, with the onboard radio equipment), but what about in earlier decades where the only reliable way to contact a train was by SPT? Edit: Thinking about it, perhaps I made a mistake in allowing 1P61 to proceed past my controlled signal HU644? Should I have held it there until 2W54 had called in at HU646? Last edited: 31/08/2016 at 22:27 by TUT Log in to reply |
| Lamp failure of an auto circumventing lamp proving 31/08/2016 at 22:52 #84443 | |
|
MarkC
1105 posts |
As you authorised 1P61 passed the failed signal it allowed the failed signal to display the red aspect (given that you said that only any proced would not show) so given that any signal in the rear of the failed signal would behave normally, ie the failed signal displaying red so the one in rear would be able to display a single yellow, once 1P61 passes sig 644 sig 646 will once again be unlit and then sig 648 will diplay red once more.
Log in to reply |
| Lamp failure of an auto circumventing lamp proving 01/09/2016 at 07:53 #84447 | |
KymriskaDraken
963 posts |
In the good old days before train radio I would have held the second train back at a controlled signal until the defective signal was showing a proceed aspect. So in this case I'd be having a word with the Signalman at the box in rear and we'd implememt a sort of block working - he would hold trains back until I could give her permission to send them, which I could only do if the defective signal was properly showing a proceed aspect. It might also be possible for the S&T to arrange to disconnect the defective signal so that it always showed Danger. That way you could run the trains normally up to it and then instruct the Driver to pass the signal at Danger. Rule Book Module TS11, Regulation 7 covers the proceedure: You may allow a train to approach a signal with a defective main aspect if you are sure that signal is showing a danger aspect and the signal is kept at danger, or you are sure it is showing the correct aspect and will not cause the driver to see an incorrect sequence. If this cannot be done, you must not allow a train to approach the defective signal until the driver has been told about the defect and one of the following applies. • The line is clear up to and including the overlap of the next stop signal that is displaying the correct aspect, beyond the defective stop signal. • The line is clear up to and including the overlap of the second stop signal beyond a defective distant signal. • The line is clear to the buffer stops on a dead-end line. Kev Log in to reply The following users said thank you: flabberdacks, TUT |
| Lamp failure of an auto circumventing lamp proving 06/09/2016 at 08:43 #84538 | |
|
Firefly
521 posts |
You'd probably be able to get a MOM out there quicker than the S&T and they could key the defective signal back to danger. In days gone by, station staff were often trained as hand signallers and would be able to do this. FF Log in to reply |
| Lamp failure of an auto circumventing lamp proving 06/09/2016 at 09:01 #84539 | |
|
KymriskaDraken
963 posts |
" said:You'd probably be able to get a MOM out there quicker than the S&T and they could key the defective signal back to danger. If the signal had such a key, and Sod's Law will say that it doesn't. Kev Log in to reply |
| Lamp failure of an auto circumventing lamp proving 06/09/2016 at 11:10 #84541 | |
|
Firefly
521 posts |
Generally all automatics will either have a signal post replacement switch or a box replacement facility. I know there are always exceptions. I think there was an SSP back in the 70s/80s that mandated it. FF Log in to reply |