GSM-R and fail safe

The driver of the culprit trian has failed to follow the rule book and has not contacted the signaller. Train running controllers do not have the authorisation to allow a train to continue forward after a SPAD.

Also if this signal is protecting a junction, there will be a TPWS grid. This will have stopped the train, unless the driver has Overridden then safety system.

I do not know the area at all, but the only issue I would see is if there was a change of GSM-R cell location, and the Emergency STOP call has not overlapped into the adjoining area? (I also could read the article before I type this, I will shortly)

Up here, I have heard of calls being made to the signaller over the GSM-R from the Gourock/Wemyss Bay line and the call has gone to Yoker panel (Helensburgh line) rather than Paisley. (Yoker panel is about 2 miles away across the Clyde. but both lines run parallel with each other for some miles.

Bottom line though, The train that had the SPAD should not have moved until contacting the signaller. The driver is at fault.

Cheers
Craig

Hap in post 109775 said:

The driver of the culprit trian has failed to follow the rule book and has not contacted the signaller. Train running controllers do not have the authorisation to allow a train to continue forward after a SPAD.

Also if this signal is protecting a junction, there will be a TPWS grid. This will have stopped the train, unless the driver has Overridden then safety system.

I do not know the area at all, but the only issue I would see is if there was a change of GSM-R cell location, and the Emergency STOP call has not overlapped into the adjoining area? (I also could read the article before I type this, I will shortly)

Up here, I have heard of calls being made to the signaller over the GSM-R from the Gourock/Wemyss Bay line and the call has gone to Yoker panel (Helensburgh line) rather than Paisley. (Yoker panel is about 2 miles away across the Clyde. but both lines run parallel with each other for some miles.

Bottom line though, The train that had the SPAD should not have moved until contacting the signaller. The driver is at fault.

Cheers
Craig

The TPWS TSS did stop the incident train (2T26). But as the driver SPADed the protecting signal of Bethnal Green North Junction (L93) there was no more TPWS to stop the train again when the driver proceeded, mistaking the instructions from the Train Service Controller as authority to proceed following the SPAD. This was about fifteen minutes after the SPAD, so the TPWS timer had of course timed out.

Train Service Controller who told the driver to go to Hackney Downs may have chosen unwise words too - not a cause but a factor, perhaps. It would not be the first time.

The controllers have access to the GSM-R whereas the signallers at Amersham, Rickmansworth and Harrow do not. Therefore when sitations arise that require the authorisation of the signaller, this is often done by the controller gaining that authority and then passing it on to the Chiltern driver.

metcontrol in post 109795 said:

The controllers have access to the GSM-R whereas the signallers at Amersham, Rickmansworth and Harrow do not. Therefore when sitations arise that require the authorisation of the signaller, this is often done by the controller gaining that authority and then passing it on to the Chiltern driver.

That sounds really dodgy. relaying messages through a 3rd/middle person can often lead to the message losing its substance and desired meaning etc.

Surely, the drivers would go to the SPT? Is there an addendum to S7 that omits the rules in regards to SPADs?

Craig

That sounds really dodgy. relaying messages through a 3rd/middle person can often lead to the message losing its substance and desired meaning etc.

Surely, the drivers would go to the SPT? Is there an addendum to S7 that omits the rules in regards to SPADs?

Craig

It's really interesting to hear these issues with the GSM-R down south. I can't fault it much up here at all, apart from the odd call to the wrong box because there's an overlap in cell coverage.

Amersham, Rickmansworth and Harrow...So in these areas, messages go from Signaller - control - driver? Again, forgive my ignorance, that's just something that we just wouldn't do. But we do still have SPT/linesides phones, and until the last year or so, NRN.

Craig

I have only ever used the emergency broadcast facility once and it did not achieve the desired effect. 1 out of the 2 trains on our network stopped... and so did a Euston-Watford service which was passing underneath our lines near Kenton.

Hap in post 109813 said:

It's really interesting to hear these issues with the GSM-R down south. I can't fault it much up here at all, apart from the odd call to the wrong box because there's an overlap in cell coverage.

Amersham, Rickmansworth and Harrow...So in these areas, messages go from Signaller - control - driver? Again, forgive my ignorance, that's just something that we just wouldn't do. But we do still have SPT/linesides phones, and until the last year or so, NRN.

Craig

Craig,

Don't forget in those areas you are on LUL infrastructure, following the LUL rule book, which has some differences to the NR one.

The same way that LUL trains (District line) have to follow the NR rule book over NR infrastructure.

Many years ago I was talking to someone who worked in King's Cross PSB at the time. He had been trying to talk to a 313 driver over NRN (I think to talk him past a signal, but I forget the details). The driver seemed confused as to what he was supposed to be doing and why. Eventually:

"Well, where *are* you then?"
"Euston Down Shed."

Just shows how complicated the railway has become. When I was driving under BR the ONLY person you conversed with in such circumstances was the signalman either by then lineside phones or in later years CSR, There was no means of being contacted by anyone else. Just out of interest it used to be the case if stood at an automatic signal on red and there was no means of contacting the signalman ie the phone had failed etc it could be passed at danger, is this still the case?

Andy174 in post 109784 said:

Just shows how complicated the railway has become. When I was driving under BR the ONLY person you conversed with in such circumstances was the signalman either by then lineside phones or in later years CSR, There was no means of being contacted by anyone else. Just out of interest it used to be the case if stood at an automatic signal on red and there was no means of contacting the signalman ie the phone had failed etc it could be passed at danger, is this still the case?

The original ruling about passing auto signals was there because they didn't protect any point work, it was just plain line to the next signal no point work requiring setting by the Signaller.

No drivers cannot pass Automatic Signal without authority any more. This changed as it was deemed that a driver can always find some form of communication to contact a Signaller, be it Signal Post Telephones, GSM-R even mobile phones that they now carry as standard, or even borrowing a passenger mobile phone. Incidently, many of the new Signalling layouts now only have Signal Post Telephones on signals at stations, or other key places. The majority of signals will not have telephones, just a plaque with the controlling Signallers telephone number.

Andy174 in post 109784 said:

Just shows how complicated the railway has become. When I was driving under BR the ONLY person you conversed with in such circumstances was the signalman either by then lineside phones or in later years CSR, There was no means of being contacted by anyone else. Just out of interest it used to be the case if stood at an automatic signal on red and there was no means of contacting the signalman ie the phone had failed etc it could be passed at danger, is this still the case?

The original ruling about passing auto signals was there because they didn't protect any point work, it was just plain line to the next signal no point work requiring setting by the Signaller.

No drivers cannot pass Automatic Signal without authority any more. This changed as it was deemed that a driver can always find some form of communication to contact a Signaller, be it Signal Post Telephones, GSM-R even mobile phones that they now carry as standard, or even borrowing a passenger mobile phone. Incidently, many of the new Signalling layouts now only have Signal Post Telephones on signals at stations, or other key places. The majority of signals will not have telephones, just a plaque with the controlling Signallers telephone number.