Page 1 of 2
| Talk past or route around? 28/11/2017 at 10:07 #103432 | |
Table 52
37 posts |
This is probably a question for people actually working in the profession. Where you have a 4 track railway with a pair of fast and slow lines, (e.g Rugby panels 1&2) and you encounter a signal failure or track circuit failure, is it better to keep trains on their booked lines and talk them past the problem, causing a few minutes delay to everything passing through, OR to try and route as much as possible onto the other pair of tracks, but potentially causing delays to trains on the alternative lines and waiting at flat junctions? Is there a generally preferred method, or is the solution simply whatever causes the least overall delay? When SimSigging, I generally try and route around any problems, but wondered if this is what goes on in the real world? Log in to reply |
| Talk past or route around? 28/11/2017 at 11:02 #103434 | |
KymriskaDraken
963 posts |
Generally I would send trains around the failure. It's usually quicker given that the train would have to be stopped, cautioned and told to pass a signal at Danger if it went on the booked line. However, trains can be sent booked route if necessary - for example to get a fast past a stopper. Any delays on either line will be put down to the failure anyway. Kev Log in to reply |
| Talk past or route around? 28/11/2017 at 11:25 #103435 | |
|
Stephen Fulcher
2084 posts |
It's also safer to route around a failure than talk by signals.
Log in to reply |
| Talk past or route around? 29/11/2017 at 09:06 #103472 | |
|
kbarber
1743 posts |
Definitely route around. Unless delays on the road that's open are getting ridiculous, in which case you might talk one or two past to ease the pressure. (But remember once you talk a driver by, you lose at least part of the security of the interlocking. So rerouting would definitely be the officially preferred option.)
Log in to reply |
| Talk past or route around? 29/11/2017 at 15:40 #103478 | |
|
Chromatix
190 posts |
To amplify the question, to what extent would this preference apply when the alternative route is not normally open to passenger trains?
Log in to reply |
| Talk past or route around? 29/11/2017 at 17:19 #103488 | |
|
KymriskaDraken
963 posts |
Chromatix in post 103478 said:To amplify the question, to what extent would this preference apply when the alternative route is not normally open to passenger trains?Ah, that's a different kettle of fish. If, for example, the alternate route was through the Goods Loop the Signalman can run trains through it, with the authority of the Signalbox Supervisor or Control, but you'd still have to stop each train and tell the Driver that he's going through the loop. Still safer (assuming that the track is in a reasonable condition!) but you won't save much time. If the failure is a long-term one the arrangements could be published in the Late Notices case so that Drivers would be aware of the diversion so there would be no need to stop the train. With a goods ine alongside the main line you would have the same restrictions as above, plus that you can only have one passenger train on the goods line at a time, and you can't have a freight in there at the same time as a passenger. If the goods line goes via a different route you then run into issues with Drivers signing the road. Kev Log in to reply The following user said thank you: Chromatix |
| Talk past or route around? 29/11/2017 at 19:48 #103492 | |
|
AndyG
1842 posts |
KymriskaDraken in post 103434 said:Generally I would send trains around the failure. It's usually quicker given that the train would have to be stopped, cautioned and told to pass a signal at Danger if it went on the booked line. However, trains can be sent booked route if necessary - for example to get a fast past a stopper. Any delays on either line will be put down to the failure anyway.Not forgetting that if on an adjacent line to a TCF, it may still be necessary for the first train to examine the line. I can only help one person a day. Today's not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look too good either. Log in to reply |
| Talk past or route around? 29/11/2017 at 20:10 #103494 | |
Carl_
14 posts |
You cant have a train on the line next to the one with the failure examine the line, it must be on the line concerned. You do however have to caution all trains passing on the adjacent line(s) when the affected line is being examined. (TCB reg - doesnt apply on AB as far as I know) Last edited: 29/11/2017 at 20:17 by Carl_ Reason: None given Log in to reply |
| Talk past or route around? 29/11/2017 at 21:13 #103495 | |
|
Mikey
15 posts |
Every time you talk a train passed a red signal, you import some risk (points set wrongly, train already in section ahead, level crossing not closed etc.), although correct application of the rules ensures it is done safely. When it is possible, it is better to route trains away from the failure to an alternative line which would reduce the workload on the signaller and may have the benefit of reducing the delay incurred and thus reducing other delays further along the line due to missed path etc. Sometimes, especially on the busy four track sections approaching the London termini, it might not be possible to divert every train around the failure, so sometimes only a few trains can divert away when the margins permit. Remember that the various requirements of the rules regarding cautioning for adjacent lines with regards to examination of the line for track circuit/axle counter failures apply. Log in to reply |
| Talk past or route around? 29/11/2017 at 21:17 #103496 | |
|
KymriskaDraken
963 posts |
Carl_ in post 103494 said:You cant have a train on the line next to the one with the failure examine the line, it must be on the line concerned.In the good old days you could examine a TCF from an adjacent line if the first train was on that line. Now, according to the General Signalling regulations (20.6.2), you just need to caution the train on the adjacent line. I would personally still get the train to examine the adjacent line. There is no longer a requirement to stop trains on adjacent line while a train examines, but those trains must be cautioned (GSR 20.2). Kev Log in to reply |
| Talk past or route around? 29/11/2017 at 22:19 #103498 | |
Gwasanaethau
509 posts |
Just out of interest, why do trains on adjacent lines need to be cautioned while another train is examining the line?
Log in to reply |
| Talk past or route around? 29/11/2017 at 22:23 #103499 | |
headshot119
4869 posts |
Gwasanaethau in post 103498 said:Just out of interest, why do trains on adjacent lines need to be cautioned while another train is examining the line?Obstruction on the line blocking the adjacent line. "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: Gwasanaethau |
| Talk past or route around? 30/11/2017 at 00:43 #103501 | |
|
Chromatix
190 posts |
An example might be seen from one of the storms in recent years, which caused containers to be blown off their flats on some of the more exposed sections of the WCML. That caused TCs to show occupied on both lines in at least one case and, I think, also caused damage to OHLE. Job stopped completely until it could all be made safe.
Log in to reply |
| Talk past or route around? 30/11/2017 at 01:37 #103502 | |
postal
5265 posts 
|
Chromatix in post 103501 said:An example might be seen from one of the storms in recent years, which caused containers to be blown off their flats on some of the more exposed sections of the WCML. That caused TCs to show occupied on both lines in at least one case and, I think, also caused damage to OHLE. Job stopped completely until it could all be made safe.See relevant RAIB reports here and here. “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 |
| Talk past or route around? 30/11/2017 at 02:25 #103503 | |
|
AndyG
1842 posts |
Carl_ in post 103494 said:You cant have a train on the line next to the one with the failure examine the line, it must be on the line concerned.In SimSigland you can only caution the train by examining the line....maybe there should be a call option added, but it wouldn't actually make a lot of difference to the train dynamics. I can only help one person a day. Today's not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look too good either. Log in to reply |
| Talk past or route around? 01/12/2017 at 14:42 #103540 | |
|
Carl_
14 posts |
AndyG in post 103503 said:Carl_ in post 103494 said:You make a good point Andy, what I tend to do for that is just wait for them to call in at a red whilst the other train examines and tell them to wait a couple a mins, pretending I told them to proceed with caution xD. It wouldn't add much as you said and is there therefore much point? they always come back with no obstruction anyway, could there not be a way for the host to choose the response? but again is there much point lol?You cant have a train on the line next to the one with the failure examine the line, it must be on the line concerned.In SimSigland you can only caution the train by examining the line....maybe there should be a call option added, but it wouldn't actually make a lot of difference to the train dynamics. To respond to Kev, yeh I usually just get adjacent lines to exam cause it saves precious mins, rather than examining with one train and then cautioning several others which is a nightmare when you're in the middle of your rush hour. Log in to reply |
| Talk past or route around? 01/12/2017 at 17:11 #103549 | |
|
postal
5265 posts
|
AndyG in post 103503 said:Carl_ in post 103494 said:Another good option would be the ability to ask the driver to examine the line in the section beyond signal XXX. This is because you can only pass the message on at a controlled signal (or one with an ERS) which may be some distance from the site to be examined. This may then require a number of stops and phone calls before the right section is reached and examined.You cant have a train on the line next to the one with the failure examine the line, it must be on the line concerned.In SimSigland you can only caution the train by examining the line....maybe there should be a call option added, but it wouldn't actually make a lot of difference to the train dynamics. “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 |
| Talk past or route around? 01/12/2017 at 17:30 #103550 | |
|
KymriskaDraken
963 posts |
postal in post 103549 said:AndyG in post 103503 said:That would be a good idea. In reality you would stop the train at a controlled signal (or auto with a reliable ERS) and tell the Driver to stop at whatever signal irrespective of aspect and call in immediately.Carl_ in post 103494 said:Another good option would be the ability to ask the driver to examine the line in the section beyond signal XXX. This is because you can only pass the message on at a controlled signal (or one with an ERS) which may be some distance from the site to be examined. This may then require a number of stops and phone calls before the right section is reached and examined.You cant have a train on the line next to the one with the failure examine the line, it must be on the line concerned.In SimSigland you can only caution the train by examining the line....maybe there should be a call option added, but it wouldn't actually make a lot of difference to the train dynamics. Kev Log in to reply |
| Talk past or route around? 03/12/2017 at 12:36 #103597 | |
Giantray
347 posts |
Table 52 in post 103432 said:This is probably a question for people actually working in the profession.It is all about location, time of day and what you have available at the time. If I was at work and had a problem on the Up Charing Cross Fast line, out of peak I could signal most trains over the Up Charing cross Slow with minimal delay, however during the peaks, I would have to flag through the failure as there would be too many trains using the slow line. Diverting could mean slowing trains down to divert to another line, lower line speed on the diverted line then possibly slowed down again to return to the correct line beyond the failure, all adds to the minutes which could mean less delay by flagging through the failure. You also have the added problem of when you return trains to their correct line after the failure, the clashes with trains in opposite directions as you try to cross diverted trains back, which in turn adds further delay. Sometimes it is easier to flag through a failure, once in a routine of doing it, delays are kept to a minimum. When I was at London Bridge ASC I have spent many hours continually flagging through a failure because overall the delay is less than diverting (impacting on other trains) and also letting S&T staff in with a Line blockage to attend the fault that would then impacts further on delays. Waiting until a quieter period often happens. Obviously depending on the extent of delay being caused by the failure. So sorry no one real answer, just experience dictates the best course of action. Professionalism mean nothing around a bunch of Amateur wannabees! Log in to reply |
| Talk past or route around? 03/12/2017 at 18:07 #103605 | |
Bonan
55 posts |
Not working in the UK, but here in Sweden we are instructed to avoid taking trains past a signal at danger as far as practical for safety reasons. However, of course, sometimes that's not possible without causing major delays.
Swedish driver and part-time signaller Log in to reply |
| Talk past or route around? 03/12/2017 at 22:31 #103607 | |
|
Chromatix
190 posts |
Something I've seen in Finland is that signals will automatically revert to a more restrictive aspect if they lose the ability to display the requested one. The signals here are essentially German-style, though the heads are differently shaped; I've seen a signal attempt to show "Slow expect Clear" (GY on main head, GG on distant head), but apparently fail to get lamp proving on the distant head and revert to "Slow expect Stop". This ability is not, however, reflected in SimSig - if you have a failed Green lamp, it won't show a Yellow as a substitute, but will instead result in an unlit signal, holding the previous signal at Danger. This potentially results in *three* instances of an approaching train stopping for instructions (ACoA, talk past red, talk past unlit), when just one or even none should be quite feasible. Which behaviour is more realistic for UK operations? Should this be considered a bug in SimSig? Log in to reply |
| Talk past or route around? 03/12/2017 at 22:53 #103608 | |
Steamer
3985 posts
|
Chromatix in post 103607 said:Which behaviour is more realistic for UK operations? Should this be considered a bug in SimSig?The behaviour is correct for UK practice- I suspect it would have been altered a long time ago if it wasn't! I remember reading that on some of the earlier 50s/60s MAS schemes (southern WCML), a signal would show Y onto an unlit signal that would otherwise be showing proceed. Additionally, it was very rare for the top yellow on four aspect signals to be proved, so if the top lamp failed the driver would get the sequence G-> Y-> Y-> R. I don't know if the top lamp is now proved on modern software interlockings. "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 |
| Talk past or route around? 04/12/2017 at 08:26 #103609 | |
|
Giantray
347 posts |
Chromatix in post 103607 said:Something I've seen in Finland is that signals will automatically revert to a more restrictive aspect if they lose the ability to display the requested one. The signals here are essentially German-style, though the heads are differently shaped; I've seen a signal attempt to show "Slow expect Clear" (GY on main head, GG on distant head), but apparently fail to get lamp proving on the distant head and revert to "Slow expect Stop".In the UK,if the green aspect was missing in a signal, the Signaller would ensure that this signal only showed a double yellow at the most by a signal held at danger ahead of the signal with the failed green aspect. Once the trains had passed the signal with the failed green aspect, only then would they clear the signal ahead ensuring it was again placed to danger once the train had passed to ensure the failed signal never showed a bank aspect, so that signalling trains this way would not result in stopping trains to contact them. Professionalism mean nothing around a bunch of Amateur wannabees! Log in to reply |
| Talk past or route around? 04/12/2017 at 08:28 #103610 | |
|
Giantray
347 posts |
Steamer in post 103608 said:Chromatix in post 103607 said:There are still locations that have this today. Yes today the top yellow is proved, it was also proved in some schemes in the 1970s.Which behaviour is more realistic for UK operations? Should this be considered a bug in SimSig?The behaviour is correct for UK practice- I suspect it would have been altered a long time ago if it wasn't! Professionalism mean nothing around a bunch of Amateur wannabees! Log in to reply |
| Talk past or route around? 04/12/2017 at 09:25 #103611 | |
|
kbarber
1743 posts |
Steamer in post 103608 said:Chromatix in post 103607 said:Which behaviour is more realistic for UK operations? Should this be considered a bug in SimSig?The behaviour is correct for UK practice- I suspect it would have been altered a long time ago if it wasn't! Known as 'Aspect or controls', I believe. I'm given to understand that it was theoretically possible, at one stage, to have a proved route from London to Manchester with just one signal alight - the yellow in the platform starter at Euston - and all signals in advance unlit but with conditions for the signal in advance to be showing yellow if it were also unlit. Log in to reply |