Page 1 of 1
| Communication when passing on trains to next control station 19/01/2016 at 00:33 #79951 | |
08wrighta
26 posts |
Hi, Just been playing on the multiplayer sim tonight of Trent, and was just interested how trains are passed along to the next signaler/ controller in terms of communication and the process in real life. I am aviation lover and was wondering if it is anything like how planes communicate how they talk to ATC (air traffic control) how they have to read and confirm messages by reading back and change frequency. Except the signalers would only communicate with other signalers passing the train along and only communicating with the train when necessary. Do controllers talk to each other before the train leaves their area? If so how is this done and what is said? In my Head it sounds Something like this: Current signaler to new signaler :(Alex 1, (signaler name) 1B08 (one Bravo Zero Eight) approaching Erewash Valley Control from Clay Cross control, Clay Cross Control now releasing control from 1B08, Confirm? Optional info on delays: Alex 1, 1B08 information, Currently Running 8 mins late. New Signaler to Current signaler: Affirm Alex 1, 1B08 approaching Erewash valley control area, 1B08 Under Erewash Valley Control, Visual contact established and Vertified. An example of a pass over from clay cross to Erewash valley control in my head from clay cross to erewash valley with 1B08. . If anything does not make sense or needs explaining further just let me know. Thanks For reading such a long post, just really curious and thanks in advance for helping/responding, Alex (08Wrighta) Log in to reply |
| Communication when passing on trains to next control station 19/01/2016 at 00:56 #79952 | |
GeoffM
6376 posts |
Talking of modern signalling only (absolute block is different and is a whole 'nuther story), the signallers rarely hand over in the way you describe. The train describer (the 4-character labels like 1B08) are automatically transmitted to adjacent signalboxes ahead of time so the next signaller knows what's coming and potentially how far away it is. Different areas have different ways of showing it but "Approach" berths (sometimes labelled APPR) are pretty much what the adjacent signal box is about to send you. The combination of the train describer and the interlocking protect the integrity of the information. If a train is about to enter a yard then, depending on the area, he may have to phone the depot to say what the identity of the inbound train is. Similarly, an outbound train might be phoned through to the signaller from the yard. Nowadays it's becoming more common for the yard to see the train describer of what's coming, and be able to interpose outbound workings. Failures of the train describer between signalboxes would mean phone calls though only to inform of the next train, no acceptance or confirmation of appearance. But there are always exceptions to the rule. SimSig Boss Log in to reply The following user said thank you: 08wrighta |
| Communication when passing on trains to next control station 19/01/2016 at 02:27 #79953 | |
headshot119
4869 posts |
One place I can think of where there's a handover of some sorts is Manchester Picadilly SC. There are five NX work stations with the NX buttons on the desk in front of the signaler, and the TD and track circuits displays on the wall. To set a route between workstations the signaler presses his entrance button, calls to the workstation next door who press there exit button. They don't bother mentioning the headcode though as both can see it in front of them. "Passengers for New Lane, should be seated in the rear coach of the train " - Opinions are my own and not those of my employer Log in to reply The following users said thank you: 08wrighta, Steamer, flabberdacks |
| Communication when passing on trains to next control station 19/01/2016 at 09:38 #79956 | |
|
kbarber
1742 posts 
|
To go on from Geoff's comment about the old ways, 'Absolute Block' (the UK name for it, referred to elsewhere as 'Manual Block' did require a complex sequence of communication between one box and the next. In the UK this was done using a code of beats (dings) and pauses on a single-stroke bell, with messages being confirmed (and, in later years, interlocking integrity being provided) by switching the indications of associated 'block instruments'. An excellent description can be accessed at http://www.signalbox.org/block.shtml The author was a relief signalman covering the last main line into London worked by mechanical boxes - the Midland Main Line, the area coverd by the West Hampstead sim. What he doesn't know about block working (including innumerable variations and all the unofficial dodges and 'loose working'is probably not worth knowing, although there's a forum associated with that website where unknown little things keep emerging even today.It might seem slow and cumbersome, but it was the standard means of operating UK railways until after the war, with automatic colour light signalling very much the exception. And it could be very slick in operation. The Midland boxes, particularly closer to London, made much use of routing codes; between St Pancras and Cricklewood there were at least 3 codes with a total of 10 beats (and in some cases meaning different things for up or down trains). Midland bells would take very fast ringing, such that an unfamiliar visitor would have trouble even counting the beats, yet the signalmen (they weren't 'signallers' in those days) had no difficulty distinguishing 2-3-5 (2 beats, a pause, 3 beats, pause, 5 beats), 3-2-5 and 2-2-1-5, from which they knew which way to set points, offer forward and pull off. (It was all short sections along there, so the working instructions were written to ensure trains got clear signals even where distant signals were near the 2nd box in rear, so that made things seem much more busy as well.) Even more to the point, until 1949 that same method of communication by single-stroke bells albeit with Sykes Lock and Block instruments (which needed similar operations but done in quite a different way) was used between Liverpool Street and Bethnal Green to operate the famous 'Jazz' suburban service - 24 trains per hour in each direction on a single pair of tracks (the other 2 pairs had their own pretty intensive services as well). I don't think the modern Liverpool St, even with ARS on full chat and no perturbations, is capable of handling that many trains. I can assure you that, even at Finchley Road Midland (between Carlton Road Jc and West Hampstead), the signalman could never physically have handled the communications requirement to pass trains verbally (and any messages that did have to be passed went via the Train Recorder AKA Box Lad, Booking Boy or whatever); at Liverpool St I think they'd have just laughed at the idea. Log in to reply The following users said thank you: flabberdacks, 08wrighta |
| Communication when passing on trains to next control station 19/01/2016 at 10:06 #79957 | |
|
RainbowNines
272 posts |
There is some element of "repeating back" when there is verbal communication - numerous safety videos that are floating around on YouTube show reconstructions of how it should be done (and how it shouldn't! Hence the safety video!) - I don't think that happens between signal boxes/work stations as much as it would between the box and people on the ground. I was in Trent last night and have to say although none of my areas fringed with yours I did enjoy the snippets of info about late running etc. As detailed above they may not have been entirely prototypical to real life but they can come in useful when deciding how to regulate. It may not be everyone's cup of tea to have those messages - some people are far more perceptive of other trains and already know what's going on! - but if you continue to be involved in multiplayer you'll spot some "unofficial" methods of working. One personal example I recall was a Kings Cross "chaos" timetable where I was sharing Finsbury panel with LAMA. I was working the City branch as it was stuffed; it required close comms between the two of us to keep things co-ordinated. You might also see someone request that the person in the next panel along advise when they're sending a train to them if they're busy at the other side of their area. Some sessions do retain an element of authenticity but generally you can agree methods of working that help everyone - you're working together to keep things moving after all! Log in to reply The following user said thank you: 08wrighta |
| Communication when passing on trains to next control station 19/01/2016 at 11:11 #79958 | |
Mattyq
259 posts |
Two situations in Australia:- The first is when I worked in Brisbane metro control. The control centre is manned by Network Control Officers (NCO's) which is a combination of Train Running Controller and Signaller/Area Controller. There is a large video wall down the front where all train movements can be monitored by all NCO's. Each NCO workstation (PC screens) only depict the area of their control. Generally speaking, communication between NCO's only happens when trains are running out of timetable order or on a line other than what they are timetabled to run on. Your imagining of comms between signallers sounds apt in an aviation environment but imagine doing that long-winded verbal exchange when you are in control of multiple main lines in a dense urban area, each line having a train every few minutes. The line of communications would be bogged down with consistent and endless handovers leaving no room for other comms requirements. Where an NCO workstation borders onto a line controlled from a different building, again, comms only occurs when trains are running off their scheduled path or out of timetable order. The control centre I currently work at is vastly different. All lines we handle are rural with the busiest of days having no more than 30 trains a day on the signalled workstation and no more than 7 or 8 trains per corridor per day on the non-signalled lines. Again, NCO's are not required to perform a verbal handover of control between each other. Each NCO's territory has a distinct demarcation line separating the area of control (a signal or kilometre point) and each NCO simply takes control of the train when it passes into his/her territory (much like UK). Because the greater bulk of our traffic is non-passenger and has a penchant for not running on its timetabled path (early or late), NCO's liaise with neighbour NCO's regularly with anticipated border times at each network boundary (called a "forecast"). For control boundaries within the same control room, it's as simple as NCO's talking to each other "Train [ID] expected at [border location] at [time]". For forecasts between other control centres, same procedure but via a telephone call. Simple as that. Although forecasts are recorded in writing, it is not a requirement to repeat back such information as it is not safety critical. On the other hand, issuing of work on track authorities, train movement authorities or Condition Affecting the Network (CAN) reports are very much safety critical. These types of communiques must be written down by the receiver (either on prescribed form or in a log book/diary) and read back to the NCO ad verbatim who then confirms "read back correctly at [time]". Not fat ..... fluffy!! (G Iglesias) Log in to reply The following user said thank you: 08wrighta |
| Communication when passing on trains to next control station 19/01/2016 at 13:41 #79962 | |
|
Ron_J
331 posts |
One of the most important differences between Track Circuit Block and Absolute Block signalling is that with the former there is no 'power of refusal' as it's termed. That is the signaller cannot prevent a train from entering his or her area of control, except in an emergency. Under Absolute Block trains are offered and accepted as has been outlined above, so the signaller can refuse traffic if they are not in a position to deal with it. Of course signallers do communicate between one another to co-ordinate traffic regulation; for example before a train is allowed to depart early it is a very good idea to check that the next regulating point can accomodate it if required. This is just all part and parcel of the job and there's no formally structured communication protocol for these sorts of conversations in the UK. Last edited: 19/01/2016 at 13:43 by Ron_J Log in to reply The following user said thank you: 08wrighta |
| Communication when passing on trains to next control station 19/01/2016 at 14:04 #79963 | |
|
Danny252
1461 posts |
" said:To go on from Geoff's comment about the old ways, 'Absolute Block' (the UK name for it, referred to elsewhere as 'Manual Block'It may also be worth mentioning that messages are also usually confirmed by repetition on the bell (there are some exceptions, more so historically). " said: One of the most important differences between Track Circuit Block and Absolute Block signalling is that with the former there is no 'power of refusal' as it's termed. That is the signaller cannot prevent a train from entering his or her area of control, except in an emergency. Under Absolute Block trains are offered and accepted as has been outlined above, so the signaller can refuse traffic if they are not in a position to deal with it.Although equally, under Absolute Block the signalman's ability to refuse trains is a key part of keeping trains safe; in Track Circuit Block, the interlocking will prevent you trying to send a train to another signaller if the line is not clear (mainly by holding signals at red!). Last edited: 19/01/2016 at 14:04 by Danny252 Log in to reply The following user said thank you: 08wrighta |
| Communication when passing on trains to next control station 19/01/2016 at 16:38 #79965 | |
madaboutrains
316 posts |
At MPSCC the signaller previously presses the exit button on the panel. Not the next signaller
RIP Feltham Panel 1 Log in to reply The following user said thank you: 08wrighta |
| Communication when passing on trains to next control station 19/01/2016 at 16:41 #79966 | |
|
headshot119
4869 posts |
" said:At MPSCC the signaller previously presses the exit button on the panel. Not the next signallerIt is possible to do that, though I personally wouldn't strain myself to go leaning over the desks to do that. When I've been there the mode of operation was as I described above. "Passengers for New Lane, should be seated in the rear coach of the train " - Opinions are my own and not those of my employer Log in to reply The following user said thank you: 08wrighta |
| Communication when passing on trains to next control station 19/01/2016 at 17:14 #79967 | |
|
Stephen Fulcher
2078 posts |
" said:At MPSCC the signaller previously presses the exit button on the panel. Not the next signallerId like to see them try that in Cardiff Panel where the exit button was the other side of the room. Log in to reply The following users said thank you: flabberdacks, 08wrighta |
| Communication when passing on trains to next control station 19/01/2016 at 17:50 #79968 | |
Gwasanaethau
509 posts |
" said:There is some element of "repeating back" when there is verbal communication… I no longer work on the railways, but this is such an important part of it that it became ingrained in everything I did very quickly, so much so that I keep doing this when managers at me new job ask me to do something. I bet it drives them nuts! :lol: Log in to reply The following user said thank you: 08wrighta |
| Communication when passing on trains to next control station 19/01/2016 at 20:35 #79972 | |
|
Jersey_Mike
250 posts |
" said:Hi,North America is more akin to ATC operations than the UK and Europe. Not sure why, it's certainly more efficient. I'll answer your specific questions from that perspective. " said: When interlocking and block stations were still in operation, the block operators would communicate with adjacent operators about what train was expected next on what track. They would also inform the dispatcher the time that the train passed their location. The dispatcher was responsible for all routing decisions. Under the old timetable system the dispatcher was in charge of making sure that interested parties were informed of trains running out of sequence since that could be safety critical information. Today trains are automatically tracked via the computerized dispatching systems and the dispatcher will see a list of trains approaching their territory as well as be able to directly view the adjacent territories. When a train is crossing between railroads the next dispatcher will sometimes have a dedicated computer screen feed with a list of trains and locations or even a line printer. Sometimes all they get is a track occupancy light in front of their signal and either they or the crew has to initiate communications. In some cases one dispatcher (or yard master or whatever) will need to make a phone call to get a train admitted to another railroad. Here is a video (timestamp 9:53) from 1987 of a pre-computer age dispatcher trying to figure out what a foreign railroad train waiting to enter his main track is and all its relevant information. Like I said, today that usually comes up on a screen or printout somewhere in the office. https://youtu.be/oxfhV8i9R-c?t=593 " said:
 how cute. Communication between control operators is rarely safety critical and therefore never formalized except in the case of relaying train orders or track warrants. Like I said in most cases the trains are the ones that need to pass themselves off to the dispatcher of a different railroad, just like ATC.* Amtrak P029 calling the NS Pittsburgh East dispatcher, over? * NS Pittsburgh East, go ahead. * We're stopped at your home signal here, any word on how long we'll be waiting? * I've got an eastbound coal train and then I'll be able to turn you lose. * Alright, Amtrak P029 out. * NS Pittsburgh East, out. Like I said, readbacks are involved when safety critical information is being transmitted. Today this is almost entirely between trains and dispatchers when the trains are running absent signal protection, against the flow of traffic or where there is no set flow of traffic. Usually dispatcher can't provide movement authorities into another dispatchers territory since that dispatcher alone is responsible for all train movements in the territory. Here is an example of what that sounds like. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kc13eGeAJU0 Last edited: 19/01/2016 at 21:51 by Jersey_Mike Log in to reply The following user said thank you: 08wrighta |
| Communication when passing on trains to next control station 21/01/2016 at 05:36 #80016 | |
|
Mattyq
259 posts |
Safe and efficient North American operations I keep hearing about........
Not fat ..... fluffy!! (G Iglesias) Log in to reply |
| Communication when passing on trains to next control station 21/01/2016 at 05:38 #80017 | |
|
Mattyq
259 posts |
Hmmm..... safe and efficient in the US, eh?
Not fat ..... fluffy!! (G Iglesias) Log in to reply |
| Communication when passing on trains to next control station 21/01/2016 at 06:35 #80018 | |
|
Mattyq
259 posts |
Interesting to see the dispatcher using correction fluid on the paperwork. That offence can cost you your job here.
Not fat ..... fluffy!! (G Iglesias) Log in to reply |
| Communication when passing on trains to next control station 21/01/2016 at 16:37 #80030 | |
|
Jersey_Mike
250 posts |
" said:Interesting to see the dispatcher using correction fluid on the paperwork. That offence can cost you your job here.The Chinchfield was a small regional railroad so they didn't have layers of middle management making rules. Log in to reply |
| Communication when passing on trains to next control station 21/01/2016 at 17:04 #80031 | |
|
Danny252
1461 posts |
And clearly very trusting of its employees, given that it apparently wouldn't suspect them of trying to cover up after an accident!
Log in to reply |
| Communication when passing on trains to next control station 21/01/2016 at 18:47 #80033 | |
|
Jersey_Mike
250 posts |
" said:And clearly very trusting of its employees, given that it apparently wouldn't suspect them of trying to cover up after an accident!I believe by the 1980's all the phone and radio communications were recorded. I'm not sure how Station Records of Train Movements were treated in terms of being official records. Here is a link to a number of Conrail dispatcher sheets and use of whiteout seems to be pretty common. http://www.multimodalways.org/archives/rrs/CR/CR%20Dispatcher%20Sheets/CR%20Dispatcher%20Sheets.html Log in to reply |
| Communication when passing on trains to next control station 21/01/2016 at 19:37 #80034 | |
|
Stephen Fulcher
2078 posts |
Over here the telephones have been recorded for more than a decade but the train register remains a legal document, and correction fluid is a definite no.
Log in to reply |
| Communication when passing on trains to next control station 21/01/2016 at 20:33 #80035 | |
|
Jersey_Mike
250 posts |
" said:Over here the telephones have been recorded for more than a decade but the train register remains a legal document, and correction fluid is a definite no.Not like it can't be scrapped off to see what was written first.
Log in to reply |
| Communication when passing on trains to next control station 22/01/2016 at 05:53 #80042 | |
|
Mattyq
259 posts |
" said:Over here the telephones have been recorded for more than a decade but the train register remains a legal document, and correction fluid is a definite no.In Australia too. Phones here have been recorded since the 80's. Ever since the invention of correction fluid and like products (EG: correction tape), it has been illegal to use it on ANY safeworking related document including TR book or controllers graph. " said: Not like it can't be scrapped off to see what was written first. ;)Obviously you've never tried doing that. Scraping off correction fluid lifts the ink with it as well as the surface of the paper. It's as simple as this, Mike - using correction fluid is generally considered by management as fraudulent activity and is treated as such (and quite rightly so). Not fat ..... fluffy!! (G Iglesias) Log in to reply |
| Communication when passing on trains to next control station 26/01/2016 at 18:09 #80140 | |
|
Jersey_Mike
250 posts |
" said:The dispatcher's sheet is not necessarily considered safety critical so that;s why all the corrections, however, even if it were the official record for investigations are the communications recordings and any other logic logs captured by the equipment. It doesn't really matter what the dispatcher writes on his forms because it won't have any effect until communicated to one or more parties in the field. By analyzing the communications one can determine who is to blame for any resulting accident. Back before communications could be easily recorded things like train orders were written out in triplicate, but those haven't been used in years. " said: First, it is very difficult to alter physical forms in a way that would stand up under forensic scrutiny. Second, applying any sort of obvious correction to a document sort of defeats the purpose of covering up a mistake! The bigger problem is not recording information in the first place so it can later be added at the responsible individual's discretion. This is your basic separation of duties problem. Signalers shouldn't be expected to write their own audit log for the same reason they aren't given a key to the locking room. In the 21st century its easier just to record everything. Log in to reply |