Page 1 of 2
| calling-on using main signal with shunt attached. 04/06/2011 at 16:59 #3145 | |
peterj
19 posts |
Hello all, When calling a train on for a join, I do this at Royston (platform 1) by setting a route between K984 and K980. As expected when the joining train approaches K984 the shunt lights up white to signal proceed. The question is how does the "system" know when I set the route that I mean this to happen? Could I not actually be requesting the route for the "main" aspects on K984 and K980? (I realise that K984 wouldn't clear as there is a train in the block). I'm not having any problem with this behavior, I just like to fully understand what is going on :) Thanks in advance for any info on this. Peter Log in to reply |
| calling-on using main signal with shunt attached. 04/06/2011 at 16:59 #16313 | |
|
peterj
19 posts |
Hello all, When calling a train on for a join, I do this at Royston (platform 1) by setting a route between K984 and K980. As expected when the joining train approaches K984 the shunt lights up white to signal proceed. The question is how does the "system" know when I set the route that I mean this to happen? Could I not actually be requesting the route for the "main" aspects on K984 and K980? (I realise that K984 wouldn't clear as there is a train in the block). I'm not having any problem with this behavior, I just like to fully understand what is going on :) Thanks in advance for any info on this. Peter Log in to reply |
| calling-on using main signal with shunt attached. 04/06/2011 at 17:23 #16315 | |
Peter Bennet
5402 posts |
The route tests for occupation of the first train and automatically selects the call-on route. In some boxes you may have a separate exit button (normally a white or grey triangle adjacent to the main signal) which you must select. The same applies to Warner (or delayed Yellow) routes where you either have a yellow triangle exit or automatic selection, this time based on whether the overlap is occupied. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply |
| calling-on using main signal with shunt attached. 04/06/2011 at 18:02 #16316 | |
|
peterj
19 posts |
Thank you very much that is a perfect explanation. Peter Log in to reply |
| calling-on using main signal with shunt attached. 04/06/2011 at 18:54 #16317 | |
|
AndyG
1842 posts |
Another variety (eg Dunbar on Edinburgh) is for a TC overide button, which has to be pressed to confirm the signaller's intention, which then clears the call-on signal.
I can only help one person a day. Today's not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look too good either. Log in to reply |
| calling-on using main signal with shunt attached. 05/06/2011 at 03:44 #16320 | |
|
UKTrainMan
1803 posts |
This thread may be useful to me as I have a quick question relating to the whole call-on route 'stuff'. Is the system's 'decision' to 'interpret' the routing as a call-on based on the main or one of the two track circuit(s) for the platform being occupied? Basically I ask as, say with a through station (like Royston), if I wanted to set another route (normal/main, not shunt or call-on) into a platform with a train just leaving do I have to wait until the platform track circuit(s) are clear (not occupied) before doing so? Thanks in advance for reply/ies.
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 |
| calling-on using main signal with shunt attached. 05/06/2011 at 07:08 #16321 | |
|
Peter Bennet
5402 posts |
As the test is for occupation then the result is either true or false and if true and a call-on is available it will be selected. However, the other thing you will find is something called "Huddersfield control" which will not allow a call-on if the train in front's signal is off. I believe this is named after an accident at Huddersfield. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply |
| calling-on using main signal with shunt attached. 05/06/2011 at 09:13 #16323 | |
|
pilotman
189 posts |
Peter Bennet said:I believe this is named after an accident at Huddersfield. Actually Peter I believe this change was brought in after a collision at Stafford 4/8/90, where the driver of a stock train was misled by the bright platform exit signal and ran into an express in the platform. The driver had been given a calling on aspect into the occupied platform only and unfortunately died in the crash. As well as not allowing a calling on aspect if the exit route is set, the corollary is that an exit route cannot be set if the calling on aspect in rear has been selected. Ray Log in to reply |
| calling-on using main signal with shunt attached. 05/06/2011 at 09:50 #16324 | |
|
mfcooper
707 posts |
Unless you have a Track Circuit Override button or similar, then a signaller has no control over wether they get a calling on signal into an occupied platform, or the main aspect once the platform becomes clear. At work, if your over-set a route into the platforms at Kensington Olympia, then you will get the calling on signal. However, if you set up the route(s) with no trains present and then put them into automatic working, then the signal won't clear unless the entire section+overlap in clear. Log in to reply |
| calling-on using main signal with shunt attached. 05/06/2011 at 12:45 #16329 | |
postal
5265 posts 
|
pilotman said:Peter Bennet said:RayI believe this is named after an accident at Huddersfield. The current regulations may well stem from the Stafford incident, but I think "Huddersfield control" has been around for a lot longer than that. My copy of Tom Rolt's "Red For Danger" is long gone, but I have a vague recollection that Huddersfield Control was mentioned in that - and I had my first copy of that book in the early to mid 1960's JG “In life, there is always someone out there, who won’t like you, for whatever reason, don’t let the insecurities in their lives affect yours.” – Rashida Rowe Log in to reply |
| calling-on using main signal with shunt attached. 05/06/2011 at 12:59 #16332 | |
|
ralphjwchadkirk
275 posts |
It's all defined in GK/RT0044. I can't find this elusive Huddersfield incident on the Railways Archive though.
Log in to reply |
| calling-on using main signal with shunt attached. 05/06/2011 at 13:17 #16333 | |
|
pilotman
189 posts |
mfcooper said:At work, if your over-set a route into the platforms at Kensington Olympia, then you will get the calling on signal. But you won't get the calling on signal if the exit signal (from the platform) is clear. postal said: My copy of Tom Rolt's "Red For Danger" is long gone, but I have a vague recollection that Huddersfield Control was mentioned in that - and I had my first copy of that book in the early to mid 1960's My copy of Red for Danger is dated 1955 and there is no Huddersfield accident in that. ralphjwchadkirk said: It's all defined in GK/RT0044. I can't find this elusive Huddersfield incident on the Railways Archive though. Well there is an incident but nothing to do with subsidiary signals (sic) As an observation this type of accident would not have occurred in semaphore days because the running signal light would not have been bright enough to confuse the driver. Log in to reply |
| calling-on using main signal with shunt attached. 05/06/2011 at 16:09 #16340 | |
|
postal
5265 posts
|
pilotman said:Ray I stand corrected. I knew that there was no Huddersfield accident specifically mentioned, but I had it in the back of my mind that there was another accident where it was noted that the incident had taken place despite the presence on the interlocking of "Huddersfield control". JG “In life, there is always someone out there, who won’t like you, for whatever reason, don’t let the insecurities in their lives affect yours.” – Rashida Rowe Log in to reply |
| calling-on using main signal with shunt attached. 05/06/2011 at 18:56 #16342 | |
|
pilotman
189 posts |
OK Mr Bennet - what is the source of this Huddersfield control theory? Was it in place prior to the tragic Stafford accident? Ray Log in to reply |
| calling-on using main signal with shunt attached. 05/06/2011 at 20:01 #16344 | |
|
Peter Bennet
5402 posts |
My original contribution is the full extant of my knowledge of the matter. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply |
| calling-on using main signal with shunt attached. 05/06/2011 at 20:11 #16345 | |
|
AndyG
1842 posts |
It's the recommendation in para 122 of the Stafford accident report on the Railways Archive website. I don't know why it's called Huddersfield control either, but there you go. I can only help one person a day. Today's not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look too good either. Log in to reply |
| calling-on using main signal with shunt attached. 05/06/2011 at 20:16 #16346 | |
jc92
3690 posts |
perhaps suggested by someone called mr X huddersfield? or invented by him?
"We don't stop camborne wednesdays" Log in to reply |
| calling-on using main signal with shunt attached. 05/06/2011 at 20:23 #16347 | |
|
Late Turn
699 posts |
I have previously seen a suggestion that the Huddersfield Control was first implemented at the resignalling of the place of the same name - that's not to say it's the right answer, but in the absence of a well-known accident there, it certainly makes sense!
Log in to reply |
| calling-on using main signal with shunt attached. 05/06/2011 at 20:30 #16348 | |
|
pilotman
189 posts |
Well it's clear that this is just a cynical attempt by someone to put Huddersfield up in lights.  More seriously here is another interlocking procedure introduced as a result of an accident - in this case one which caused loss of life. Shades of Welwyn Control perhaps? Ray Log in to reply |
| calling-on using main signal with shunt attached. 05/06/2011 at 20:47 #16351 | |
|
jc92
3690 posts |
pilotman said:More seriously here is another interlocking procedure introduced as a result of an accident - in this case one which caused loss of life. Shades of Welwyn Control perhaps?prett much all major advances result from accidents, thats the way of the world, reading red for danger puts this into perspective. the same could be said of lewisham and harrow bringing about widespread use of AWS or hawes jcn promoting use of sequencial interlocking and track circuits "We don't stop camborne wednesdays" Log in to reply |
| calling-on using main signal with shunt attached. 06/06/2011 at 11:00 #16359 | |
|
kbarber
1743 posts |
Some controls - Lime Street control is the example that springs to mind - seem to have been named for the location where first used rather than (more commonly) for the incident that led to their introduction. I would speculate that Huddersfield was the first box to have this feature (possibly even before the Stafford collision, or at least before the report was published). It might even have been provided as a response to the Stafford incident, if it was a convenient guinea pig. Such a guess would have some weight if Huddersfield was undergoing some degree of resignalling around that time, presumably with Stafford happening late-ish in the design phase. (Or perhaps even the risk had been noticed & someone had produced this clever control to eliminate it, at about the right time but not soon enough for the unfortunate driver at Stafford.)
Log in to reply |
| calling-on using main signal with shunt attached. 06/06/2011 at 11:20 #16361 | |
|
pilotman
189 posts |
kbarber said:Such a guess would have some weight if Huddersfield was undergoing some degree of resignalling around that time Seems feasible to me. Also if Stafford was coming up for resignalling (perhaps) BR would not have wanted to fiddle with that installation at the time, hence Huddersfield might have been a suitable place for a prototype. Ray Log in to reply |
| calling-on using main signal with shunt attached. 07/06/2011 at 09:35 #16396 | |
|
kbarber
1743 posts |
pilotman said:kbarber said:Such a guess would have some weight if Huddersfield was undergoing some degree of resignalling around that time There was nowt significant going on at Stafford at the time. It was resignalled in the early '60s for the WCML electrification. I have an idea that the fast-to-slow crossovers each end of the station may have been remodelled from double Xovers with diamonds to multiple single-leads at some point and there may have been addition of modern features (such as Huddersfield control) but otherwise I think it's a largely early '60s installation, with a large manual box at each end and TCB working all round (including through the station, which may have been an innovation when it was commissioned given that Crewe North & Crewe South worked AB to each other). Log in to reply |
| calling-on using main signal with shunt attached. 08/06/2011 at 12:04 #16415 | |
|
peterj
19 posts |
My simple question turned into a pretty interesting thread! Thanks for all the extra background info. Pete Log in to reply |
| calling-on using main signal with shunt attached. 09/06/2011 at 07:56 #16435 | |
GeoffM
6376 posts |
I now have it on good authority that Huddersfield Control was so-called because it was the first such location to have it applied to the interlocking. This from signallers and ops managers there now and back when it was installed. On the other hand, Tollerton Control and the Newcastle Points Problem were named after the locations in which they occurred. SimSig Boss Log in to reply |